How long will it take a beginner to reach ELO 1700?

i don't really see what you mean cherub enjel

A year is about the fastest you could do it, 3-10 years is more likely, depending on effort and having good training resources. Of course its quite common to never reach 1700, it's pretty formidable.

You mean your OTB rating is 1600, and you learned chess about 6 months ago? 

Highly doubt it, but possible... 

What I meant was that Hikaru and other extremely talented GMs took a long time to get good, so it's funny how these average players want to increase their ratings dramatically in months or so.

It took me 2 years of hard training and over 3 years time (I was on and off chess) to get a rating of 1800+. Of course, a chess club coach (FM) in my elementary school, where I first learned the rules, said if I'd gone to a USCF tournament, I'd probably get at least a 1000 rating, so I didn't start from 0 or anything.

Don't expect too much from your first couple of rated events. Unless you have nerves of steel, you'll probably be nervous and off your game until you get used to the atmosphere at tournaments. It might not be until your fourth or fifth rated tournament that you relax enough to play at your natural strength.

It's the truth my friend. However, I will admit, it has been a year and a half since that happened, and my peak rating is only 1647, where is was litterally 1599 after my first tournament, which I held a strong 1550 rating until a huge tournament victory.

I'll admit though, I was 12, perhaps being a kid of that age is for some reason the right time?

This is why I feel chess struggles to be as popular as it could be. For one thing, for a newbe, it not that easy to pick up on the movement of the pieces, then finally getting the hang of things only to be crushed by a player that has been doing it for a longer time then you. But the most disheartening part of chess, is the fact that most will not excel in the game, which can be a turn off. Most important is your attitude for the game. Do you enjoy playing win or lose, and knowing you will never be an expert or above?  on a side note, I truly believe chess develops character, help the brain to thinking ahead, like in driving, being in the right line for that turn coming up ahead. Even to being organized, in many other activities

Jeremy Silman estimates that Chess.com ratings are 200-300 points higher than OTB regular USCF ratings and, based on the OTB-playing 900-1300 high school kids I coached and the games people play here, I think that's probably right.

I know that in my first OTB tournament (no Internet then!) I had not lost a game to friends in years, and lost my first four of five games. Friends I made at the tournament site were rooting for me in the last round.  Fortunately, it was a Swiss so I got paired with a weak player I beat.

But OTB can wake you up!  If you want to try OTB, I suggest finding an open chess club, spend some time playing, and get opinions of your strengths and weaknesses from OTB players with 1600 or better ratings.

If anyone wants to speculate on a rating system for daily to OTB, the number of games played at once must be taken into account. 

Are those chess.com ratings Daily or Rapid (or Blitz)? *gulp*

Before chess.com meddled with the standard ratings, they were pretty accurate compared to USCF.  At the low end, chess.com tended to overstate and at the high end, understate, but they were pretty good.

200-300 higher than USCF ratings is a joke.

I remember Jeremy Silman's article that he was referencing and I believe the person in question was fairly low rated at standard so being a couple hundred over could be plausible.

Getting to 1700 is easy...just sign up with Chess.com for a new account, then choose the inexplicably available 1800 rating for your starting rating...then just lose games until you hit 1700.  Ta-da!  1700 rating...

Oh, you meant in venues where ratings still mean something?  Never mind then.

 One to two years if you concentrate on tactics and endgame and study Morphy's game,  very little on openings and some middlegame.

"Chess.com ratings" is meaningless without specifics. Daily chess is easily a few 100 points higher while blitz might even be lower.

The handful of tournament players I know in person, who also have accounts here, have their blitz rating plus or minus 100 from their USCF. FWIW they're rated 1900-2100.

Of course some people suck at blitz, and it will be a few 100 lower. Some people are blitz specialists, and it will be a few 100 higher.

Which is why I specified chess.com standard ratings.

But Silman, MickinMD, and NeilBerm didn't

 Before the "boost", I heard that many titled players couldn't break 2000 standard, and computer impossible was like 1800. 

Daily ratings are by far the least accurate ratings, and tend to over/underestimate drastically. 

There's a 2600 GM with a 1400 Daily rating (even when he wasn't timing out, he was around 2100), and 1400 USCFs playing 2-3 games at once who are 2100.